Concordia Theological Quarterly
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
:al by Concordia Theological Quarterly Volume 75:1-2 January/April 2011 Table ofContents A Confessional Response to North American Lutheran-Reformed Ecumenism Mark Mattes ............................................................................................ 3 Father, Son, and Spirit Is God: What Is the Point? William C. Weinrich ............................................................................. 27 :als God as Secondary Fundamental Doctrine in Missouri Synod Theology Iso David P. Scaer ....................................................................................... 43 .caI 06j Luther and Calvin on God: Origins of Lutheran and Reformed Differences the Roland F. Ziegler .................................................................................. 63 Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin on the Significance of Christ's Death ilof John A. Maxfield ................................................................................... 91 Jur Post-Reformation Lutheran Attitudes les, Toward the Reformed Doctrine of God at Benjamin T.G. Mayes ......................................................................... 111 Luther's Threefold Use of the Law ion Edward A. Engelbrecht ..................................................................... 135 .5.) Gerhard Forde's Doctrine of the Law: A Confessional Lutheran Critique on Jack Kilcrease ...................................................................................... 151 ical ted Theological Observer ...................................................................................... 180 Ash Wednesday A Pro-Life Prayer CTQ 75 (2011): 111-134 le Post-Reformation Lutheran Attitudes Toward the th Reformed Doctrine of God in Id Benjamin T.G. Mayes al :h Doctrinal dissent has been raging for many years with the Reformed, h. the spiritual heirs of Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin} Lutherans have been ~r, falling away from the faith of their fathers and following the dictates of se their reason, becoming Calvinists, or worse, Unitarians. Society is more of pluralistic than ever before. It is no wonder, then, that pastors and people 19 are confused. They ask: How should we relate to the Calvinists? Can we id accept their baptisms? Do they worship a different god? Are they heretics? ld Thankfully, we have seminary faculties who have answered these questions on the basis of God's word. One of these seminaries is located in Wittenberg. The year is 1619. The question is, "Is Calvinism a damnable sect?" And what is the answer? In this article, I will show that for Johann Gerhard, Philipp Nicolai, and the Lutheran faculty opinions collected by Georg Dedekenn, the "high orthodox" Lutheran opposition to Calvinism centered on the will of God and on Christology, but not on essential attributes of God such as simplicity, immutability, and eternity. Lutheran perceptions of Reformed error in the first few decades after the Formula of Concord show us what the burning issues of those days were, and can provide us with zeal and tools for our tasks today. When I speak of the age of "orthodoxy" or the time of "high orthodoxy," I mean the time from the Book of Concord of 1580 through the death of Johann Gerhard in 1637. This was a period of scientific flourishing in theology, of a deeper use of Aristotelian scholastic philosophy, of a comprehensive systematization of dogmatics, and of omnifaceted apologetics.2 In the period of Lutheran orthodoxy, the Lutheran churches defended the Christian message made normative in the Lutheran 1 Hans Leube, Kalvinismus und Luthertum im Zeitalter der Orthodoxie (Leipzig, 1928; repr., Aalen: Scientia-Verlag, 1966). 2 Robert Kolb, "Lutheran Theology in Seventeenth Century Germany," Lutheran Quarterly 20, no. 4 (2006): 431-433. Other periodizations exist. See Markus Matthias, "Orthodoxie: 1. Lutherische Orthodoxie," q.v. in Theologische Realenzyklopiidie, ed. G. Krause and G. Muller (Berlin, 1977-) (henceforth TREJi Wallmann, "Lutherische Konfessionalisierung - Ein Oberblick," 49-50; Kenneth G. AppoId, Orthodoxie als of Konsensbildung: Das theologiscl1e Disputationswesen an der Universitiit Wittenberg zwischen 1570 und 1710 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 89-90. lin 620 Benjamin T.G. Mayes is Associate Editor of Professional and Academic Books at Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri. 112 Concordia Theological Quarterly 75 (2011) Confessions and did so with the use of Aristotelian philosophy, developing a unified churchly doctrine and defending it with sharp polemic against the other confessions.3 1. Johann Gerhard: Theological Commonplaces Johann Gerhard has been called the"arch-theologian of the Lutheran Church" due to his penetrating insight and voluminous writing.4 His Theological Commonplace on the Nature of God addresses many topics of contemporary interest regarding the doctrine of God, such as social trinitarianism, open theism, language for God, and divine suffering.S 3 This is how Hermann Schussler describes Lutheran theology of this period, though he does not use the term "orthodoxy." Kenneth Appold, however, notes a significant degree of academic freedom among orthodox Lutherans at Wittenberg from 1570 through the end of the seventeenth century. Appold, Ortlwdoxie als Konsensbildung, 11,317. See also Walter Sparn and Jorg Baur, "Orthodoxie, lutherische," in Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon: Internationale theologische Enzyklopiidie, ed. Erwin Fahlbusch and Ulrich Becker, vol. 3 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 953-959. With the term "orthodox," the churches of the Reformation claimed for themselves the concept of the church found in the ancient Christian confessions. By claiming to be "orthodox," they claimed continuity with the Christendom of the Bible, of the ancient church, and of the first centuries. Matthias, "Orthodoxie: I. Lutherische Orthodoxie," 464-465; Johann Anselm Steiger, "The Development of the Reformation Legacy: Hermeneutics and Interpretation of the Sacred Scripture in the Age of Orthodoxy," in Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: 'TIle History ofIts Interpretation, vol. 2, From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 691-757, here at 702. Luther himself used the term"orthodox" to describe his teaching, and thus the term does not belong only to Lutheranism after the Formula of Concord, according to Jorg Baur, "Orthodoxie, Genese und Struktur," q.v. in TRE, here at 25:501-505. Opponents of the term "orthodoxy" in reference to Lutherans after the Formula of Concord include Heiner KUcherer, Katechismuspredigt: Analysen und Rekonstruktionen ihrer Gestaltwerdung, Predigt in Forschung und Lehre (Waltrop: Spenner, 2005), 154. Ernst Koch does not use the term. Das Konfessionelle Zeitalter- Katholizismus, Luthertum, Calvinismus (1563-1675) (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2000). Unfortunately, the period of Lutheran orthodoxy has suffered from neglect, due especially to a view stemming from radical Pietism, which saw orthodox theology as lifeless, sterile, and focused on doctrine to the exclusion of piety. This same myth continues in the minds of many, though the period is now getting a fair amount of respectful and balanced attention; cf. Steiger, "The Development of the Reformation Legacy," 697-698. 4 Erdmann Rudolph Fischer, The Life of John Gerhard (Malone, TX: Repristination Press, 2001), 295-296. See also C.F.W. Walther, "Lutherisch-theologische Pfarrers '\ Bibliothek," Lehre und Wehre 1 (1855): 300-301; Wilhelm Lohe, "Why Do I Declare Myself for the Lutheran Church?" trans. Holger Sonntag, Logia 17, no. 3 (2008): 28. 5 Johann Gerhard, Theological Commonplaces: On the Nature of God and on the Most Holy Mystery of the Trinity, ed. Benjamin T.G. Mayes, trans. Richard J. Dinda (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2007). See the chapters on the unity of the divine essence, on divine omniscience, eternity, justice, and immutability. Mayes: Lutherans and the Reformed Doctrine of God 113 hy, Gerhard marks a turning point in the Lutheran presentation of the doctrine arp of God. Before Gerhard, all the Lutheran dogmaticians started their presentation of the doctrine of God by discussing the Trinity, and they omitted any discussion of the divine attributes. Gerhard, on the other hand, began with the divine names before moving to the attributes, and ran only after that dealt with the Trinity. Later dogmaticians generally His followed Gerhard in discussing the divine essence and attributes before i of the eternal relations of the divine persons in the Trinity. Robert Preus cial regretted this move of Gerhard's, but said that it was a necessary :lg.5 development, since it had not been discussed previously. Preus's wish was that Gerhard and the later orthodox Lutherans had begun with the Trinity and moved to the divine attributes after that. 6 Despite his displeasure with Jod, es a the ordering, Preus defended the Lutheran orthodox doctrine of God 'rom overall: ung, the old Lutheran theologians, although discussing a number of ;ches !rich philosophical questions and using a good deal of philosophical term vocabulary, do not see God as some sort of neuter First Cause, but as fthe the Lord of history who is also Creator of all. Theirs is a Biblical rather they than a philosophical notion of God.? f the tann A closer look at Gerhard's commonplace On the Nature of God shows, and however, that some of Preus's concerns have a simple explanation. First, 'Old regarding the ordering of the systematic presentation-whether essence ment and attributes or Trinity should be taught first -